Big Pitch

 Concluding argument in writ against insurer. Might go through a revision before filing, but content at this point.

    Declaration

    It is the duty of an insurer to investigate fraudulent claims against a client and if IEAC, upon Petitioner stating Claim in question was fraudulent, would have picked up a phone to inquire whether security cameras captured the incident as Petitioner presumed they would, none of this would be taking place and IEAC would not have had to pay out whatever it did for for two bodily injury settlements and an unescessary new vehicle door. It is a mystery to Petitioner not only why IEAC has never questioned the third party’s claim, but seemingly has done everything it could to substantiate it.

    Petitioner believes that since October 15, 2025 IEAC has attempted to trick Petitioner into waiting too long to file a civil action while forcing Petitioner to conduct own investigation. Petitioner believes it would be unjust to rule Petitioner must first contemplate a lawsuit over a ministerial duty when evidence in Statement of Facts indicates IEAC is intentionally withholding Claim file specifically to sabotage Petitioner’s ability to prove bad faith in a suit. Petitioner has a beneficial interest and right to obtain Claim file and will gain a direct benefit from doing so and suffer direct harm if not. The denial Letter of January 26 is proof IEAC is violating a ministerial duty under Insurance Code § 2071. Petitioner formally requested Claim file with certified letter and was denied, and Petitioner has demonstrated plain, speedy, adequate remedies have been exhausted: In true and valid emails exchange Petitioner pleaded with IEAC to come to terms to make situation whole and Petitioner filed complaint with California State Department of Insurance and has never heard back.

    If fact and law leaves a respondent with only one legal path—a ministerial act—a full trial would be a pointless waste of judicial resources. While a lawsuit is in 2026 the ordinary course of law the Court retains equitable discretion to grant a writ when a ministerial duty is being ignored and delay of lawsuit would be a miscarriage of justice. Petitioner has been treading water over this matter for months and continues to do so. Petitioner believes IEAC has acted and is acting unreasonably and without proper cause and has breached statutory law with reckless, outrageous conduct resulting in mental and emotional shock, distress, suffering, anguish, worry, and humiliation for Petitioner. Petitioner believes the ministerial duty must be performed now to halt ongoing damage looming towards severe and perhaps permanent mental and emotional damage for Petitioner. This case is an exception where the ordinary course of law fails. Is there any reason Petitioner should wait two or more years for a trial over a right the law states Petitioner is entitled to today? Petitioner believes this case, the failure of an auto insurer to carry out a ministerial duty affects a large class of people and the State Supreme Court has held that this Court can bypass the adequate remedy rule to provide a definitive ruling for the public good, that even if a lawsuit could eventually bring justice a writ may be granted if a case involves a legal issue of public importance that deserves an immediate and definitive answer. Petitioner believes the issue tendered in this petition is of widespread interest affecting a broad class of citizens and provides the Court opportunity to exercise its powers in the interests of any citizen in the State who purchases auto insurance.

    Petitioner maintained a studio/gallery for almost fifteen years and has been accepted to numerous open calls for art. Petitioner is also a literary artist and has had multiple poems published by college journals and on-line literary establishments, published three books to date (two novels and a translation), and as playwright has had one play produced to date. Petitioner mentions this for an important reason, Petitioner has had their professional artistic capabilities de-habilitated for almost five months and situation is persistent, ongoing, and mounting. To create art of value requires focus and sound mind and Petitioner has been in constant state of distraction and rumination and distress. If Petitioner were a construction worker Petitioner’s particular situation here would be tantamount to working with broken bones. Petitioner estimates 90% less poems and 50% less visual works each month for months now, compounding injury and misery. Petitioner believes that requiring Petitioner to file suit without Claim file in hand would be unjust.

    If a writ proceeding is to exact justice unto a case and the Court has broad discretion in how it is adjudicated, perhaps a jury ought to be impaneled to decide questions of fact and law: Can an auto insurer in the State of California settle a claim however it decides and without question? Must an auto insurer note California Insurance Code Section § 2071 in an auto policy, and if not, why isn’t that omission an act of bad faith in and of itself? Presiding Judge or impanelled writ jury, Petitioner believes this case an opportunity to exact justice and like a bolt of lightning in the name of the people under CCP § 100 have its thunder resound for all insurers to hear.